Consensus Call Tranche 8 (Character Adjustments)

Thu Oct 16 14:43:24 CEST 2008

Dear Dr. Cerf and other WG members,

First of all, I would like to thank WG members for their comments on this
matter.

I have been discussing this issue again with my government since our last
IETF meeting.

Among several government bodies (Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Korea
Communications and Commissions, etc) and government agencies (Korean Agency
for Technology and Standards and the National Institute of The Korean
Language, Korean Standards Association), there was a lively discussion on
the feedbacks from IDNAbis IETF WG.

The position of the Korean government is the same as before since we made a
decision very carefully to prevent a potential harm for IDN users.

I will try to provide more clear explanation on this Hangul Jamo issue next
week. Please understand that the government process is slow.

Thank you.

Regards,
Jaeyoun Kim
National Internet Development Agency of Korea (NIDA)

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:

> I am traveling in Oregon at the moment and will try to summarize the state
> of responses tonight to the latest set of consensus questions.
> I confess that I share Patrik's concern for disregarding a consensus
> process from a specific language expert group.
>
> vint
>
>
>  NOTE NEW BUSINESS ADDRESS AND PHONE
> Vint Cerf
> Google
> 1818 Library Street, Suite 400
> Reston, VA 20190
> 202-370-5637
> vint at google.com
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2008, at 1:33 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
> On 16 okt 2008, at 06.08, Martin Duerst wrote:
>
> I had a look at the document again. For those points of the
> proposal where it disagrees with what we currently have,
> the words "not needed" are used. Nothing that even comes
> close to words such as "harmful", "confusing", or the like
> appears for points 1 and 2. The word "confusing appears for
> point 3, Hangul Compatibility Jamo, which we already disallow.
>
> Of course writing and reading such documents is always frought
> with difficulties, but I don't think that the hypothesis that
> the authors understand the difference between "we don't need
> them" and "these are dangerous" is far-fetched.
>
>
> Fair. Thanks Martin for taking time to read this document again.
>
> This because I think having an IETF wg make a decision about consensus
> that is _against_ a proposal from a formal organisation like NIDA that
> say they have been running a consensus driven process in Korea with
> participants from Korean Agency for Technology and Standards (National
> Body of ISO and IEC), the National Institute of The Korean Language,
> etc, is serious.
>
> If we had a similar situation in Sweden where IETF ruled against what
> similar consensus driven process in Sweden about Swedish...well, I
> would start asking serious questions on how consensus in IETF was
> reached.
>
> So, I am as editor of the tables document neutral in the issue. I just
> envision that for 8.c, we will get questions given what the consensus
> seems to be at the moment.
>
>     Patrik
>
> Regards,    Martin.
>
> At 04:31 08/10/16, Patrik F舁tstr� wrote:
>
>
> On 15 okt 2008, at 20.36, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
>  On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 08:20:05PM +0200, Patrik F舁tstr� wrote:
>
> Understood. Note that if we look at the proposals eszett and the
> one
> from korea, the eszett is an exception, while the korean proposal
> uses
> the Unicode properties.
>
>
> Hmm.  If this is the case (and at least in the Korean proposal, my
> notes make me think that we have a different meaning of "Unicode
> properties" in the above, but I'm certainly not willing to assert
> that
> I'm right), then I'm even more confused than I at first thought I
> was.
> So I'm going to shut up about this topic, but I _still_ have to say
> "no", since the consensus call said explictly that silence would be
> counted as support (and I obviously can't support what I don't
> understand).
>
>
> I understand your statement, and view.
>
> I am just confused over the reaction in general from people.
>
> I have attached the Korean proposal, which in short is:
>
> 1. Add Hangul Jamo to blocks to disallow (i.e. "2.1.4 IgnorableBlocks
> (D)")
> 2. Add two codepoints (that is "Inherited", but not DISALLOWED by
> other means) to DISALLOWED
>
> I.e. I must correct myself when I said that the proposal is only
> using
> Unicode properties. I can not (but I am tired...) see how to catch
> the
> two Bangjeom codepoints U+302E and U+302F without using exceptions.
>
> People interested in this discussion should also re-read the messages
> from Ken where he explain his view is that this is something that
> should be expressed by a registry policy.
>
> Message-Id: <200807281913.m6SJDpL01810 at birdie.sybase.com>
> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
>
>   Patrik
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>
>
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp<duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20081016/ff441ff8/attachment-0001.htm 